https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154917 The appellants sought a refund of Education Cess on sugar and molasses, arguing that they did not pass on the duty incidence to customers. However, it was found that the Education Cess had been collected from customers by the appellants themselves. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, denying the refund as the duty incidence was passed on. Additionally, regarding molasses, the appellants' claim for refund was rejected as the principle of unjust enrichment applies even in cases of captive consumption, and they failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on, despite selling at a controlled price fixed by the State Government. en-us Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:49:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154917 The appellants sought a refund of Education Cess on sugar and molasses, arguing that they did not pass on the duty incidence to customers. However, it was found that the Education Cess had been collected from customers by the appellants themselves. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, denying the refund as the duty incidence was passed on. Additionally, regarding molasses, the appellants' claim for refund was rejected as the principle of unjust enrichment applies even in cases of captive consumption, and they failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on, despite selling at a controlled price fixed by the State Government. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154917